Pages:
Author

Topic: Riots after Death of Man in Minneapolis Police Custody - page 14. (Read 4451 times)

legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
So if the taser is so dangerous then the police officer had no business taking it out in the first place.  That means Rayshard Brooks had reason to fear for his life, defend himself and also flee.   Secondly, don't chase a man that closely if you are afraid he's about to take your life.  Thats just dumb.    Police have no concept of defensive positioning when they are allegedly so scared for their lives.  We've seen officers drive up 2 feet away from a boy they thought was threatening their lives with a toy gun.  

If you think theres danger, you'd keep a distance.   They are creating the very threat to their lives they are killing people over.  These cowards have no business being police officers.

   Unfortunately, your opinion does not matter.  Established law does.  Feelings do not overrule facts.
You're arguing yourself in a never-ending circle of stupidity.

   Tasers can incapacitate. There is always one known firearm in any encounter, the cops gun. A cop cannot be allowed to become incapacitated, otherwise he can lose control of his firearm. This particular criminal already demonstrated he's got no hesitation in feloniously taking an officer's weapon. He demonstrated nothing but criminal activity. There's no reason to believe he would not also take an officer's firearm if he was able to incapacitate the officer.

  Your problem is you keep blaming cops for the criminal's actions. And you just cant see it, or even consider being objectively reasonable, because you have been conditioned to follow the herd.

  Maybe this guy can explain a little better. I think I've mentioned all of his points, but here they are written by a professional.
  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-police-shooting-of-rayshard-brooks-in-atlanta-was-tragic-but-justifiable
I'm not arguing about what the law is.  I know the law and disagree with it. That is why we are protesting to begin with.  I don't think police should have firearms at all unless they are responding to a firearm.  Maybe keep it in the trunk.  Weak cops who cannot keep their weapons away from a drunk man two on 1, should not be carrying weapons at all.  

I'm not blaming cops for anyone's actions but their own.  People do bad shit in these interactions but rarely does it justify execution and its cops escalating the whole while and eventually pulling the trigger.  I hold the cops responsible for the results and ensuring the safety of everyone involved because that is their job. If the job is unreasonable then we should change the job and that is exactly the solution I'm suggesting.  I'm not following the herd either.  I've been suggesting police reform and taking away guns from beat cops   for over ten years.  

Unfortunately these people have reached a point in their mental degradation where they put emotion in equivalence with or above logic. You can't use logic to prove a point to some one who thinks emotions equal facts. Emotions are the doorway through which they are conditioned to believe their feelings equal logic, opening them to be easily manipulated. On some level they know how absolutely full of shit they are, but their cognitive dissonance won't allow them to admit it. Even if they can admit it to themselves quietly, they believe the ends justify the means, and because they "feel" it is right, by virtue of their good will, their actions become logical and right. These people aren't going to stop until they end up in a bloody pile. This is the inevitable result any time logic exits the equation.
A person who uses logic with no emotions is a psychopath.  Emotions are the only way to incorporate empathy and compassion into decision making. A psychopath might think killing off all of the disabled would benefit society, but anyone with emotions and compassion would easily see the moral downside of an extreme decision like that and make the moral (not logical) argument against it.  

As I have said many times before, either you are a fucking moron or a liar. Nothing you suggest makes any God damned sense even if you manage to jam that last square neuron into that round role in that peanut you call a brain. Having a gun in the trunk is worth FUCK ALL. Yes, lets ask the homicidal maniac nicely if he would please not shoot you for a moment so you can go unlock the trunk.

Emotions are not equivalent to morals. Morals are a code of conduct, AKA logic. You should get a refund for your playskool psychology degree. Also, there are plenty of logical arguments against fucking eugenics dipshit, even if you are spending too much time drooling to think of them. Good try at an over the top straw man though, gold star for effort.
full member
Activity: 952
Merit: 175
@cryptocommies
So if the taser is so dangerous then the police officer had no business taking it out in the first place.  That means Rayshard Brooks had reason to fear for his life, defend himself and also flee.   Secondly, don't chase a man that closely if you are afraid he's about to take your life.  Thats just dumb.    Police have no concept of defensive positioning when they are allegedly so scared for their lives.  We've seen officers drive up 2 feet away from a boy they thought was threatening their lives with a toy gun.  

If you think theres danger, you'd keep a distance.   They are creating the very threat to their lives they are killing people over.  These cowards have no business being police officers.

   Unfortunately, your opinion does not matter.  Established law does.  Feelings do not overrule facts.
You're arguing yourself in a never-ending circle of stupidity.

   Tasers can incapacitate. There is always one known firearm in any encounter, the cops gun. A cop cannot be allowed to become incapacitated, otherwise he can lose control of his firearm. This particular criminal already demonstrated he's got no hesitation in feloniously taking an officer's weapon. He demonstrated nothing but criminal activity. There's no reason to believe he would not also take an officer's firearm if he was able to incapacitate the officer.

  Your problem is you keep blaming cops for the criminal's actions. And you just cant see it, or even consider being objectively reasonable, because you have been conditioned to follow the herd.

  Maybe this guy can explain a little better. I think I've mentioned all of his points, but here they are written by a professional.
  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-police-shooting-of-rayshard-brooks-in-atlanta-was-tragic-but-justifiable
I'm not arguing about what the law is.  I know the law and disagree with it. That is why we are protesting to begin with.  I don't think police should have firearms at all unless they are responding to a firearm.  Maybe keep it in the trunk.  Weak cops who cannot keep their weapons away from a drunk man two on 1, should not be carrying weapons at all.  

I'm not blaming cops for anyone's actions but their own.  People do bad shit in these interactions but rarely does it justify execution and its cops escalating the whole while and eventually pulling the trigger.  I hold the cops responsible for the results and ensuring the safety of everyone involved because that is their job. If the job is unreasonable then we should change the job and that is exactly the solution I'm suggesting.  I'm not following the herd either.  I've been suggesting police reform and taking away guns from beat cops   for over ten years.  

Unfortunately these people have reached a point in their mental degradation where they put emotion in equivalence with or above logic. You can't use logic to prove a point to some one who thinks emotions equal facts. Emotions are the doorway through which they are conditioned to believe their feelings equal logic, opening them to be easily manipulated. On some level they know how absolutely full of shit they are, but their cognitive dissonance won't allow them to admit it. Even if they can admit it to themselves quietly, they believe the ends justify the means, and because they "feel" it is right, by virtue of their good will, their actions become logical and right. These people aren't going to stop until they end up in a bloody pile. This is the inevitable result any time logic exits the equation.
A person who uses logic with no emotions is a psychopath.  Emotions are the only way to incorporate empathy and compassion into decision making. A psychopath might think killing off all of the disabled would benefit society, but anyone with emotions and compassion would easily see the moral downside of an extreme decision like that and make the moral (not logical) argument against it.  
full member
Activity: 414
Merit: 182
This has absolutely nothing to do with the current President. The person in that seat has very little influence on how any cop does his job.

It has nothing to do with one cop. Or 10 cops. People just had it enough. When you become president you become president of whole country. Trump simply failed there. And was just adding more shit month over month. It all get packed with covid-19 lockouts and then, ....    This riots would happen sooner or latter. And if by some miracle Trump stays president for longer and continue what he is doing there will be more and in way bigger scale.

Where did Trump fail?   I'm listening.

Each State's Governor was responsible for their state's lockdown.
Each Officer is following Use of Force Rulings that have been in effect since 1985.

But, Trump's fault?   Please.... do tell....
legendary
Activity: 2730
Merit: 1288
This has absolutely nothing to do with the current President. The person in that seat has very little influence on how any cop does his job.

It has nothing to do with one cop. Or 10 cops. People just had it enough. When you become president you become president of whole country. Trump simply failed there. And was just adding more shit month over month. It all get packed with covid-19 lockouts and then, ....    This riots would happen sooner or latter. And if by some miracle Trump stays president for longer and continue what he is doing there will be more and in way bigger scale.
full member
Activity: 414
Merit: 182
To me it seems that all this violence happened just because of incompetence of the country president. 4 years of bullshit has to show somehow.

The funny thing that I am noticing is that suddenly black in USA are realising they are actually "racist" feeling they are better then black people that live in Africa. All this revealings will open many yes.  

    This has absolutely nothing to do with the current President. The person in that seat has very little influence on how any cop does his job. If any President influenced police relations for the worse, it was Obama who started the war on cops and added fuel to the fire, making it OK to judge all cops by the actions of a few. The same thing no racial group wants to happen to them.
    If you watch anything other than the leftist controlled media, you'll find out this President has actually accomplished more for more people, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. Probably the only President in my lifetime to do what he said he would, and not just blow smoke. Reagan is the last one I remember being this effective at getting things accomplished.
   If only our current President didnt tweet so much and get suckered into engaging trolls.

   But if you've ever watched The Wizard of Oz.... you should be looking for the man behind the curtain. Everything you see happening now leads back to a huge political financial giant.
legendary
Activity: 2730
Merit: 1288
To me it seems that all this violence happened just because of incompetence of the country president. 4 years of bullshit has to show somehow.

The funny thing that I am noticing is that suddenly black in USA are realising they are actually "racist" feeling they are better then black people that live in Africa. All this revealings will open many yes.  
full member
Activity: 414
Merit: 182
One more aspect to consider.  

If police did not stop this dangerous felon immediately..... and he used that taser to carjack someone in the parking lot, and drove off in their car, while drunk, crashed and killed someone else.  

Who's fault would that be. The officer would be charged complicit to murder and fired, for the death of the innocent person killed by the fleeing felon.
  Who's live is more important? The violent criminal? Or an innocent bystander?

Quick, you have about 3 seconds to answer that, evaluate the risk and possibility, all while fighting for your life.

They are damned if they do, damned if they don't.


What if the cops, while shooting at the running/fleeing dude missed and the bullet shot/killed a bystander (imagine a pregnant white woman).
Whose fault is that?  How does the situation get dealt with ?

Maybe cops are trained at shooting moving target, maybe they are good at shooting, but an error is always possible, and the consequences can be dramatic.
Lethal force, should always be put in the balance and chosen only in last resort (regardless of the guy was a multi recidivist felon, child beater and drunk).


Couldn't agree more. One of the cardinal rules of firearms is to know your target, it's surroundings, and what's beyond it.
   In this case, I don't know what the officer saw
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
One more aspect to consider.  

If police did not stop this dangerous felon immediately..... and he used that taser to carjack someone in the parking lot, and drove off in their car, while drunk, crashed and killed someone else.  

Who's fault would that be. The officer would be charged complicit to murder and fired, for the death of the innocent person killed by the fleeing felon.
  Who's live is more important? The violent criminal? Or an innocent bystander?

Quick, you have about 3 seconds to answer that, evaluate the risk and possibility, all while fighting for your life.

They are damned if they do, damned if they don't.


What if the cops, while shooting at the running/fleeing dude missed and the bullet shot/killed a bystander (imagine a pregnant white woman).
Whose fault is that?  How does the situation get dealt with ?

Maybe cops are trained at shooting moving target, maybe they are good at shooting, but an error is always possible, and the consequences can be dramatic.
Lethal force, should always be put in the balance and chosen only in last resort (regardless of the guy was a multi recidivist felon, child beater and drunk).


Cops are trained to evaluate the situation. This doesn't make it always easy.

The point for you and me is that we never know for a fact that some accident, even death, isn't going to happen to us in the next minute. So, we should always be prepared for death as much as we can.

Cops evaluate the crowded street. They won't shoot except if the crook is killing people right and left... or if they have a clear, accurate shot.

Accidents happen, but cops are far, far, far, less likely to cause them than the crook. I sure don't want to get in my car a little later, and get killed by somebody running a red light. But it happens. And so do stray bullets.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 2114
Merit: 1693
C.D.P.E.M
One more aspect to consider.  

If police did not stop this dangerous felon immediately..... and he used that taser to carjack someone in the parking lot, and drove off in their car, while drunk, crashed and killed someone else.  

Who's fault would that be. The officer would be charged complicit to murder and fired, for the death of the innocent person killed by the fleeing felon.
  Who's live is more important? The violent criminal? Or an innocent bystander?

Quick, you have about 3 seconds to answer that, evaluate the risk and possibility, all while fighting for your life.

They are damned if they do, damned if they don't.


What if the cops, while shooting at the running/fleeing dude missed and the bullet shot/killed a bystander (imagine a pregnant white woman).
Whose fault is that?  How does the situation get dealt with ?

Maybe cops are trained at shooting moving target, maybe they are good at shooting, but an error is always possible, and the consequences can be dramatic.
Lethal force, should always be put in the balance and chosen only in last resort (regardless of the guy was a multi recidivist felon, child beater and drunk).
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
You seem to forget all the hundreds of cases where a verdict was handed down through the ignorance of the people within the case. Anybody can find dozens of cases that, if the defendant or his attorney had know or used some simple law or court case that they didn't use, the whole case would have changed.

The point? If all you want to do is rely on the ignorance of the people, you are way worse than the people being tried.

Cool

You seem to forget we aren't talking about other cases, we are talking about this case.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
Yes, I forgot Mr Decker has his own law. So for your purposes I can extrapolate a wee bit further....

APD policy is in tune with established case law. And... well, that's about all it takes.  Department policies must adhere to current US and state law, not BADecker's version of law.



You seem to forget all the hundreds of cases where a verdict was handed down through the ignorance of the people within the case. Anybody can find dozens of cases that, if the defendant or his attorney had know or used some simple law or court case that they didn't use, the whole case would have changed.

The point? If all you want to do is rely on the ignorance of the people, you are way worse than the people being tried.

Cool
full member
Activity: 414
Merit: 182
Yes, I forgot Mr Decker has his own law. So for your purposes I can extrapolate a wee bit further....

APD policy is in tune with established case law. And... well, that's about all it takes.  Department policies must adhere to current US and state law, not BADecker's version of law.

legendary
Activity: 3010
Merit: 8114
What conspiracy?  Oh, the BLM thing?   Take a look and you can find the truth, it can be found everywhere, you just refuse to look.

I looked into it more thoroughly than anybody else posting about it here.

Again, the ActBlue Charities money doesn't go to the ActBlue PAC. The two divisions have different sets of accounts. Again, you linked the OpenSecrets page for the ActBlue PAC which is a separate division of ActBlue that has nothing to do with the BLM donations. The BLM donations go to the BLM Foundation via ActBlue Charities. They do not go to the PAC. The two are separate divisions of the same organization.

https://secure.actblue.com/abcharities
Quote
AB Charities' powerful tools make it easy for any organization to run an advanced, modern fundraising program online.

That's why we're trusted by nonprofits across the country.

If you're a 501(c)3 organization and you're interested in doing better online fundraising and reaching more grassroots donors, get in touch with us. We can get most groups set up and fundraising in a day or so.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=474143254
Quote
Name in IRS Master File   BLACK LIVES MATTER FOUNDATION
Subsection   501(c)(3)

Here's where the BLM Foundation money goes to as of their latest publicly-available tax filing:

Quote
Form 990, Part III , Line 4a:
- Provided food and clothing for various churches - Supported local programs for the homeless - Currently developing programs to support better community relations with the police - Filmed, Recorded, Produced, & Arranged a For Tribute video and song highlighting those un-jusltly slain by police to create better community awareness and support for our foundation

Charities aren't even allowed to donate to political campaigns if they want to retain their tax exempt status.

https://www.nonprofitexpert.com/nonprofit-questions-answers/can-nonprofits-be-involved-in-political-campaign-activity/
Quote
For an organization to be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) it cannot “participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements) any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”

The cops ARE the law.  They change as the law changes.  Their entire job is literally enforcement of established law, regardless of personal feelings or beliefs. Humans doing a robots job. And things are set in stone, until they change the stone. Up until 1985, ANY felon fleeing from the law in Tennessee could be shot in the back, and they were.  That was the law.  Then in 1985, the Tennessee vs Garner case was heard by the US Supreme Court, and the law changed, now the fleeing felon must pose a risk of harm to others in order for deadly force to be used. That law changed, the cops changed with the law.

OK, that's a great example of the law needing to be changed because it was fucked. Just because something is or isn't a law doesn't make it right.

Here, you missed his one because the guy wasn't black, but same circumstances http://foxsanantonio.com/news/local/suspect-shot-dead-by-cop-after-taking-officers-stun-gun-tasing-him
   Your point is moot.

Not the same circumstances as Brooks didn't tase the officer, and the officer didn't have backup.

This seems to be a giant waste of time, don't know what I'm doing here exactly anymore, but there are several examples of similar situations caught on video where the suspect wasn't killed.

So... what exactly is your point? Obviously we'll never see eye-to-eye on this issue. I'm gonna get back to work.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
Since PopoJeff doesn't realize that the thing he is calling law, is really policy, what he says doesn't matter. The problem is that most people don't know the difference between law and policy - just like PopoJeff - so they succumb to the policy-makers in court.

Cool

Some people, IE you. If that was a civilian he would have been absolutely justified in the same use of force. Your default freeman replies aren't going to cut it here. Common law has clear standards about use of force. When you become violent and victimize others, you legally have all the rights of a rabid animal under common law.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
So if the taser is so dangerous then the police officer had no business taking it out in the first place.  That means Rayshard Brooks had reason to fear for his life, defend himself and also flee.   Secondly, don't chase a man that closely if you are afraid he's about to take your life.  Thats just dumb.    Police have no concept of defensive positioning when they are allegedly so scared for their lives.  We've seen officers drive up 2 feet away from a boy they thought was threatening their lives with a toy gun.  

If you think theres danger, you'd keep a distance.   They are creating the very threat to their lives they are killing people over.  These cowards have no business being police officers.

   Unfortunately, your opinion does not matter.  Established law does.  Feelings do not overrule facts.
You're arguing yourself in a never-ending circle of stupidity.

   Tasers can incapacitate. There is always one known firearm in any encounter, the cops gun. A cop cannot be allowed to become incapacitated, otherwise he can lose control of his firearm. This particular criminal already demonstrated he's got no hesitation in feloniously taking an officer's weapon. He demonstrated nothing but criminal activity. There's no reason to believe he would not also take an officer's firearm if he was able to incapacitate the officer.

  Your problem is you keep blaming cops for the criminal's actions. And you just cant see it, or even consider being objectively reasonable, because you have been conditioned to follow the herd.

  Maybe this guy can explain a little better. I think I've mentioned all of his points, but here they are written by a professional.
  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-police-shooting-of-rayshard-brooks-in-atlanta-was-tragic-but-justifiable

Unfortunately these people have reached a point in their mental degradation where they put emotion in equivalence with or above logic. You can't use logic to prove a point to some one who thinks emotions equal facts. Emotions are the doorway through which they are conditioned to believe their feelings equal logic, opening them to be easily manipulated. On some level they know how absolutely full of shit they are, but their cognitive dissonance won't allow them to admit it. Even if they can admit it to themselves quietly, they believe the ends justify the means, and because they "feel" it is right, by virtue of their good will, their actions become logical and right. These people aren't going to stop until they end up in a bloody pile. This is the inevitable result any time logic exits the equation.

Since PopoJeff doesn't realize that the thing he is calling law, is really policy, what he says doesn't matter. The problem is that most people don't know the difference between law and policy - just like PopoJeff - so they succumb to the policy-makers in court.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 3010
Merit: 8114

It really shouldn't matter what the law says cops can and can't get away with -- they should know better at this point in time that just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should do it.


Did you REALLY just write that?   Go back and read it again.    

"It really shouldn't matter what the law says" Huh    

Thats literally the most important thing in the world.  Cops dont make the laws, they don't write the laws. They ENFORCE the established laws. The laws that are made by your elected politicians. In a court of law, where they (and you) are judged for their actions, literally the only thing that matters is WHAT THE LAW SAYS.
   Not the kids opinions, not the opinions of any race that want special treatment.  The cops have to follow the law, and none of this shit would be happening if everyone else did to.


"They should know better" Huh  

 Better than what? The laws that govern their operation and procedure?  The laws of the state the operate in?
I think what you're really trying to say is you don't want cops to arrest black people for their crimes anymore. You want special treatment for blacks. There's the racist side of all this mess. The race pandering.  


There's a thing called unpleasant truths vs and comforting lies.  I'll give you an example:  
   BLM is fighting for the rights of the oppressed is your comforting lie.  But the unpleasant truth is they're destroying property and lives of the innocent, at a higher rate than anyone else, while most 'woke' folks are asleep to the fact they are nothing more than a political operative, funding and being directed by the Democratic Party.  
   Here's another one.  You think justice is served in the Floyd case, by rushing the charges on Chauvin. Makes you feel good, right? That knee hold looked awful.  Unpleasant truth is, Chauvin will be found not-guilty of murder. Because most of the public is ignorant of US law.

Nope. You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be, going full conspiratard in the process. Whatever argument you are making is not aided by projecting upon me and referencing conspiracies backed by zero actual evidence whatsoever.

The point is just because the police have the right to do something under the law, it does not mean that it is just. Laws are a continually evolving work in progress. Nothing is set in stone - not even the constitution - that's why we have amendments.

Just because police can do something awful legally, it doesn't mean they should do it. Is that really so hard to understand?
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
So if the taser is so dangerous then the police officer had no business taking it out in the first place.  That means Rayshard Brooks had reason to fear for his life, defend himself and also flee.   Secondly, don't chase a man that closely if you are afraid he's about to take your life.  Thats just dumb.    Police have no concept of defensive positioning when they are allegedly so scared for their lives.  We've seen officers drive up 2 feet away from a boy they thought was threatening their lives with a toy gun. 

If you think theres danger, you'd keep a distance.   They are creating the very threat to their lives they are killing people over.  These cowards have no business being police officers.

   Unfortunately, your opinion does not matter.  Established law does.  Feelings do not overrule facts.
You're arguing yourself in a never-ending circle of stupidity.

   Tasers can incapacitate. There is always one known firearm in any encounter, the cops gun. A cop cannot be allowed to become incapacitated, otherwise he can lose control of his firearm. This particular criminal already demonstrated he's got no hesitation in feloniously taking an officer's weapon. He demonstrated nothing but criminal activity. There's no reason to believe he would not also take an officer's firearm if he was able to incapacitate the officer.

  Your problem is you keep blaming cops for the criminal's actions. And you just cant see it, or even consider being objectively reasonable, because you have been conditioned to follow the herd.

  Maybe this guy can explain a little better. I think I've mentioned all of his points, but here they are written by a professional.
  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-police-shooting-of-rayshard-brooks-in-atlanta-was-tragic-but-justifiable

Unfortunately these people have reached a point in their mental degradation where they put emotion in equivalence with or above logic. You can't use logic to prove a point to some one who thinks emotions equal facts. Emotions are the doorway through which they are conditioned to believe their feelings equal logic, opening them to be easily manipulated. On some level they know how absolutely full of shit they are, but their cognitive dissonance won't allow them to admit it. Even if they can admit it to themselves quietly, they believe the ends justify the means, and because they "feel" it is right, by virtue of their good will, their actions become logical and right. These people aren't going to stop until they end up in a bloody pile. This is the inevitable result any time logic exits the equation.
full member
Activity: 414
Merit: 182
So if the taser is so dangerous then the police officer had no business taking it out in the first place.  That means Rayshard Brooks had reason to fear for his life, defend himself and also flee.   Secondly, don't chase a man that closely if you are afraid he's about to take your life.  Thats just dumb.    Police have no concept of defensive positioning when they are allegedly so scared for their lives.  We've seen officers drive up 2 feet away from a boy they thought was threatening their lives with a toy gun. 

If you think theres danger, you'd keep a distance.   They are creating the very threat to their lives they are killing people over.  These cowards have no business being police officers.

   Unfortunately, your opinion does not matter.  Established law does.  Feelings do not overrule facts.
You're arguing yourself in a never-ending circle of stupidity.

   Tasers can incapacitate. There is always one known firearm in any encounter, the cops gun. A cop cannot be allowed to become incapacitated, otherwise he can lose control of his firearm. This particular criminal already demonstrated he's got no hesitation in feloniously taking an officer's weapon. He demonstrated nothing but criminal activity. There's no reason to believe he would not also take an officer's firearm if he was able to incapacitate the officer.

  Your problem is you keep blaming cops for the criminal's actions. And you just cant see it, or even consider being objectively reasonable, because you have been conditioned to follow the herd.

  Maybe this guy can explain a little better. I think I've mentioned all of his points, but here they are written by a professional.
  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-police-shooting-of-rayshard-brooks-in-atlanta-was-tragic-but-justifiable
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
How was he potentially a "deadly threat"? His taser had been discharged. He was running away from the cops. Not a deadly threat to anyone. Besides, its not about what the cops have the right to do under the law, its about what they should do. Being able to legally finesse your way into murder should be discouraged among our nation's police force.

That's called finessing your way out of BEING murdered not committing murder. Assault on a police officer is pretty serious time. Weird how you are willing to make every assumption of innocence for the convicted child beater violently attacking police, but they are the bad guys for not letting themselves or others become victims. This is all of course while you don't even live here and don't have to deal with any of this. Of course you don't mind others paying for your cult membership, it is not your blood.


I've and idea.Why don't Black and White men...in fact men of all colors and creeds combine forces and address the REAL problem Grin



Clearly the only answer is systemic sexism. It is the only possible explanation.



So if the taser is so dangerous then the police officer had no business taking it out in the first place.  That means Rayshard Brooks had reason to fear for his life, defend himself and also flee.   Secondly, don't chase a man that closely if you are afraid he's about to take your life.  Thats just dumb.    Police have no concept of defensive positioning when they are allegedly so scared for their lives.  We've seen officers drive up 2 feet away from a boy they thought was threatening their lives with a toy gun. 

If you think theres danger, you'd keep a distance.   They are creating the very threat to their lives they are killing people over.  These cowards have no business being police officers.

Wait, so he is free to assault the police, and they had no business taking out a tazer to stop him? So poor Mr. child beater Brooks had a legitimate fear for his life, but not the police? Do you eat paint chips or are you just totally and unabashedly full of shit?
legendary
Activity: 3010
Merit: 8114
None of this is grounds for a death sentence. You can make the argument that he was potentially a "deadly threat" to others - the courts may see it otherwise. Regardless, running away with a discharged taser is not a justifiable reason to be executed.

If he was a deadly threat to others, why under Tennessee vs. Garner wouldn't the officers have the legal authority to shoot Brooks? I'd argue he was a potentially deadly threat to officers primarily, then bystanders.

How was he potentially a "deadly threat"? His taser had been discharged. He was running away from the cops. Not a deadly threat to anyone. Besides, its not about what the cops have the right to do under the law, its about what they should do. Being able to legally finesse your way into murder should be discouraged among our nation's police force.
Pages:
Jump to: